Untitled

Press, Volume LII, Issue 15608, 5 June 1916, Page 6

One of the London newspapers in its comments on the naval battle, suggests tliat it had its origin in a surrender by tho Admiralty to tho temptation to reassure tho nervous people on the East Coast of England. This appears to us to be a particularly wrong-headed criticism. in the first place, we have the assumption that tlie losses sustained by our Navy in this action require an instant search for the man who ought to be beheaded. As if, when a fighting Navy in time of war. sustains an injury, somebody must have been criminally remiss or criminally foolish! If tho nation, and the rulers of the nation, took the view that the Navy must do its work without receiving hard knocks, then the outlook for Britain would bo blue indeed. In the second place, it is playing Germany's game, and it is defying facts and common-sense, to treat our losses in the battle as so terrible that somebody must be punished for them.

Mr Balfour's letter to the nervous East Coast Mayors, which is somehow taken by this critic to be very significant, was nothing rnoro than a reassurance which the Admiralty was doubtless as glad to give as the Mayors were to receivo it. That tho raids on the East Coast caused the Admiralty to make any sacrifice of strategy, or even to risk anything in

that way. is really not conceivable. Everyone was agreed that such a satisfaction of the enemy's hopes could not be contemplated for a moment. "\Yo do not yet know exactly tho character ox the position which, brought on the action, but there is no warrant for assuming that the British squadron was merely manoeuvring in order to induce a strong German offensive. It is more reasonable—though no evidence is available yet—to assume that the squadron was domg orthodox work, and not engaged in arranging something spectacular for British eyes. 4 The most interesting of all the birthday honours is the Order of Merit for Mr Balfour. Of those, who ha\> ever considered the fact that Mr Balfour has remained without a title, a majority, perhaps, would cor.i(\~s that they would much dislike having to think of his having "a hmidiv" to hr, name. Other men become notable for high work in thcii held of usefulness and rise through the degrees of titular honour, but Mr Balfour very pleasantly remains Mr Balfour. 'file Order of Merit is not an old one; it was created in 1902 for the honouring of British subjects who have won conspicuous distinction in the naval and military services, or in letters. art. or science. A Victorian statesman particularly liked the Garter bccausc there was "no damned merit about it,'' and it was doubtless the excellence of the opposite way of looking at things that prompted King Edward to create this Order, which now receives Mr Balfour into its membership. The other philosophers and men of letters who belong tl> the Order are Lord Rayleigh, Viscount Morlcy, Viscount Bryce, Professor Henry Jackson, Mr Thomas Hardy, Sir William Crookes, Sir George Trevelyan, and Sir J. J. Thomson. The late Mr Henry James enjoyed his membership for only a brief space. That Mr Balfour has acccptcd this honour may be taken as something like a final notification that lie has no wish for any title. $ It has been given to few men to achieve so great a reputation as Mr Balfour's in such widely different fields of labour as practical politics and religious philosophy. For the past 36 years he has been in the political firingiine, and always amongst the conspicuously powerful figures in it. Yet lie has found time to bring forth a succession of profound philosophical studies. During this war lie has been able, while taking lii 3 full share of the responsibilities and labour of government, to give to religious philosophy another important volume. It is not always true that a man can bring honour to an Order, but the Order of Merit certainly gains a new distinction from the fact that it now includes Mr Balfour.